There are lots of fields where social norms strongly reinforce the idea that people "own" their ideas. All of science and academia most notably, but also writers, journalists, etc. I'm very hesitant to say that system should be overturned. But I guess you could override it (or "de-contextualize") in some specific cases?
There are lots of fields where social norms strongly reinforce the idea that people "own" their ideas. All of science and academia most notably, but also writers, journalists, etc. I'm very hesitant to say that system should be overturned. But I guess you could override it (or "de-contextualize") in some specific cases?
I agree that the US justice system (and most justice systems) are not great. But I reckon they're probably *less* bad than just leaving people to it. Gossip sorta kinda works in small bands, but I don't think it "scales" very well.
I guess I'm influenced by the open source software movement that (a) is not credited enough for the real advances in the tech sector and (b) is fairly explicit in its culture of believing ideas belong to everyone and aren't so obsessed with attribution (which is something I experienced during my Econ Phd as a software guy).
I know the narrative around geniuses and their ideas are often perpetuated in media but there are a lot of substantial contributions that don't feed into the propaganda/marketing machine - but we're perhaps largely unaware of.
Yes we need a justice system, just making the point that many in America don't think getting convicted by the justice system is a symbol of bad behavior. More often than not, a symbol of a bad justice system. Overall agree we need justice systems, the one in the USA is especially fraught.
Open source software is a very interesting contrast to credit-obsessed academia. I wonder if there are examples of people trying to apply social punishment to someone and removing their contributions? (Aside from people who contributed security vulnerabilities.)
i don't think that really happens, version control and open source licenses sort of prevent that sort of behavior. once it's out there, it's out - and it belongs to everyone - and there isn't a lot that anyone can do about it.
there are some very impressive people that have made very substantial contributions in OSS who don't feel the need to put in the extra effort to make it all about themselves.
There are lots of fields where social norms strongly reinforce the idea that people "own" their ideas. All of science and academia most notably, but also writers, journalists, etc. I'm very hesitant to say that system should be overturned. But I guess you could override it (or "de-contextualize") in some specific cases?
I agree that the US justice system (and most justice systems) are not great. But I reckon they're probably *less* bad than just leaving people to it. Gossip sorta kinda works in small bands, but I don't think it "scales" very well.
I guess I'm influenced by the open source software movement that (a) is not credited enough for the real advances in the tech sector and (b) is fairly explicit in its culture of believing ideas belong to everyone and aren't so obsessed with attribution (which is something I experienced during my Econ Phd as a software guy).
I know the narrative around geniuses and their ideas are often perpetuated in media but there are a lot of substantial contributions that don't feed into the propaganda/marketing machine - but we're perhaps largely unaware of.
Yes we need a justice system, just making the point that many in America don't think getting convicted by the justice system is a symbol of bad behavior. More often than not, a symbol of a bad justice system. Overall agree we need justice systems, the one in the USA is especially fraught.
Open source software is a very interesting contrast to credit-obsessed academia. I wonder if there are examples of people trying to apply social punishment to someone and removing their contributions? (Aside from people who contributed security vulnerabilities.)
i don't think that really happens, version control and open source licenses sort of prevent that sort of behavior. once it's out there, it's out - and it belongs to everyone - and there isn't a lot that anyone can do about it.
there are some very impressive people that have made very substantial contributions in OSS who don't feel the need to put in the extra effort to make it all about themselves.